on christmas eve i had the opportunity to catch up with a few chums at the most popular drinking spot in town (a large weatherspoons).
i haven't actually been out to that pub on christmas eve for a couple of years and it looked like a normal friday night / quiet saturday night... my friend told me that 'it rarely gets busier than this'. the last time i went there on christmas eve it was jam packed, queue to get in, up to 20-30 minute wait at the bar.
so with the smoking ban, price of a pint and many smaller locals closing do you socialise as often down the pub as you used to or do you do different things ?
personally i tend to go out for meals more now... although the cost of drinks are usually more expensive than the pub, the whole experience in a mid-market restaurant is more compelling (i'm thinking of pizza express, prezzo, local indian/chinese restaurant etc) we do also get a takeaway in or pile around somebodies house and watch a dvd, play some party games or have a bbq or whatever.
i used to go down a local pub with my friend every tuesday for the quiz which was always a good laugh but unfortunately the landlord retired and the pub eventually closed, a lot of people stopped going after the smoking ban.
Going down the pub...
-
Dr Lobster*
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Sat 30 Aug, 2003 20.14
Purely for cultural reasons, I think it would be unfortunate if the local pub died out. I think of it (perhaps misguidedly) as something quintessentially British. Even as a tourist in London a couple of years back, my friends and I would invariably end up in a pub at the end of an evening before heading back down the road to the family we were staying with. The idea was only ever to have one or two beers before going home, which, if I'm honest, was probably not our typical approach then with alcoholic beverages. The local pub is a place to sit and chat - and struck me, in a sense, as almost like a second home for people. I guess the reason I like the idea of it so much is that it's not something I think we have here in Australia - my 'local' (if one exists) is probably in the next suburb, and would be frequented almost exclusively by old people whose idea of entertainment is to stick coins in pokie machines all day. Not the sort of place I would be particularly inclined to visit, let alone sit and have a drink.
As for the smoking ban - I don't really know how true it is to say that patronage has nose-dived since it came into effect. I'm in two minds about it, and have tended to vacillate between positions more times than I care to remember. I don't like the idea of telling businesses what rules they must enforce, but at the same time I do enjoy the fact that I can have a night out without coming home smelling like I've just rolled in an ashtray. While I'm sure there are people who might go out less as a result of the smoking ban, I suspect there are also many people who go out more as a consequence. It would be interesting to see if the ban were ever removed (obviously not likely in this era of the nanny state) how many licensed venues would voluntarily continue to prohibit smoking inside their premises. Prior to the ban coming into effect here in Melbourne I know some bars had chosen to send smokers outside, and it struck me that the only places that did it had some niche which they could capitalise on - a general pub just wouldn't want to take the risk. With the status quo reversed, how many would take the 'risk' to reintroduce smoking to their venues?
Having said all of that, there is something rather silly about having a pub where the vast majority of locals are smokers (and I'm confident there are many places where this was/is the case), and then having the government institute a policy telling them all they have to smoke outside. That's the sort of thing which I think does have the potential to kill off a business, particular if the pub in question has limited outdoor facilities, or if it's just too damn cold/wet/miserable outside thanks to Mother Nature (and increasingly Al Gore). Ultimately if people have made the choice to smoke - and so long as tobacco remains a legal product - then it seems frankly ridiculous to implement measures that make it as awkward and inconvenient as possible to smoke.
Is there a problem here? There are almost certainly external costs associated with cigarette smoke - smokers obviously derive utility from smoking (an inconvenient truth for all the health nuts), but at the same time non-smokers in the immediate area probably aren't quite so enthusiastic about inhaling their secondhand smoke. There is a cost imposed on them - either through health concerns about passive smoking (which, let's face it, is probably only a marginal concern - the likelihood of a person contracting lung cancer as a consequence of inhaling somebody else's cigarette smoke is probably no greater than the probability of contracting the disease from any other source, such as car exhaust fumes) or simply the general discomfort if you happen not to like the smell of cigarette smoke in the air. So there is a case for some form of intervention, because you want the people who generate the external cost (ie. the smoker) to cover it. It is precisely because of these external costs that we tax cigarettes. We increase the price that smokers must pay, such that they will reduce their consumption of cigarettes to a level that, when all the costs and benefits are taken into account, is socially optimal. However, my view is that the taxes that are currently imposed in most developed countries on tobacco tend to be too high - that is, that we are taxing at a rate higher than the external cost being generated by smokers. That partly stems from the fact that smokers tend to die younger, and in fact will generate lower health costs for the state on average than a non-smoker who ends up living longer. Some economists have (tongue firmly planted in cheek mind you) that this cost differential is such that the state should actually be subsidising cigarette consumption... But I digress.
I think the current policies targetting smokers amount to vilification. Smokers are the modern-day equivalent of lepers. In fact, just as we are reducing discrimination against a whole host of groups in society, policymakers are actively working to increase discrimination against smokers. Of course, there is a difference in that smokers make a conscious choice to smoke --- but for the purposes of policy, I'm not sure that should matter. I see stupid suggestions like dictating how cigarettes must be packaged - a recent proposal I've heard argued is that cigarette packs should not have any branding on them whatsoever, apart from the name of the cigarette type in plain font, with the space available on the rest of the pack given to graphic health warnings. Now, I'm sorry, but if smokers don't know the health risks associated with what they're doing, then the Darwinist in me says that society is better off if they die. Of course, most smokers are well aware of the health risks already. The point of such a policy is plainly not to provide smokers with more information - it is designed to make the packs of cigarettes so ugly that smokers will be ashamed to display them in public. What next? Smokers being made to wear a special coloured star on their clothes? How about sending them to 're-education' camps - "Quitting macht frei"? Of course, that's all more than just a slight exaggeration, but the issue of smoking is no longer a policy debate - it's not driven by facts or by careful evaluations of costs and benefits. It is one group in society that wants to impose their will on everyone else - and I think that's fundamentally wrong.
The sad thing is, I don't think it will stop with tobacco either. I have heard more than a few times this year from supposed 'experts' that we now apparently need to have health warnings on alcohol as well. Which, in a rather circuitous fashion, brings me back to the original topic. I think a large part of any observed decline in pub trade has come simply as a result of politicians and the media whipping up hysteria over perceived threats to social order. Binge drinking is rampant, apparently - yet if Britain is anything like Australia, drinking levels have probably remained much the same throughout this decade. But the perception of some grave crisis has scared people - many don't want to be out drinking anymore because violent fights might break out, leaving them to pick broken glass out of their eyes. I'm sure the threat to regular pubgoers is no greater today than it has been in the past. But the desire for politicians to be seen to be doing something, and for the media to sell papers and attract viewers makes the 'problem' seem far worse than it actually is. Is it any wonder that we're left to speculate on why something as iconic as the local British pub appears to be dying?
As for the smoking ban - I don't really know how true it is to say that patronage has nose-dived since it came into effect. I'm in two minds about it, and have tended to vacillate between positions more times than I care to remember. I don't like the idea of telling businesses what rules they must enforce, but at the same time I do enjoy the fact that I can have a night out without coming home smelling like I've just rolled in an ashtray. While I'm sure there are people who might go out less as a result of the smoking ban, I suspect there are also many people who go out more as a consequence. It would be interesting to see if the ban were ever removed (obviously not likely in this era of the nanny state) how many licensed venues would voluntarily continue to prohibit smoking inside their premises. Prior to the ban coming into effect here in Melbourne I know some bars had chosen to send smokers outside, and it struck me that the only places that did it had some niche which they could capitalise on - a general pub just wouldn't want to take the risk. With the status quo reversed, how many would take the 'risk' to reintroduce smoking to their venues?
Having said all of that, there is something rather silly about having a pub where the vast majority of locals are smokers (and I'm confident there are many places where this was/is the case), and then having the government institute a policy telling them all they have to smoke outside. That's the sort of thing which I think does have the potential to kill off a business, particular if the pub in question has limited outdoor facilities, or if it's just too damn cold/wet/miserable outside thanks to Mother Nature (and increasingly Al Gore). Ultimately if people have made the choice to smoke - and so long as tobacco remains a legal product - then it seems frankly ridiculous to implement measures that make it as awkward and inconvenient as possible to smoke.
Is there a problem here? There are almost certainly external costs associated with cigarette smoke - smokers obviously derive utility from smoking (an inconvenient truth for all the health nuts), but at the same time non-smokers in the immediate area probably aren't quite so enthusiastic about inhaling their secondhand smoke. There is a cost imposed on them - either through health concerns about passive smoking (which, let's face it, is probably only a marginal concern - the likelihood of a person contracting lung cancer as a consequence of inhaling somebody else's cigarette smoke is probably no greater than the probability of contracting the disease from any other source, such as car exhaust fumes) or simply the general discomfort if you happen not to like the smell of cigarette smoke in the air. So there is a case for some form of intervention, because you want the people who generate the external cost (ie. the smoker) to cover it. It is precisely because of these external costs that we tax cigarettes. We increase the price that smokers must pay, such that they will reduce their consumption of cigarettes to a level that, when all the costs and benefits are taken into account, is socially optimal. However, my view is that the taxes that are currently imposed in most developed countries on tobacco tend to be too high - that is, that we are taxing at a rate higher than the external cost being generated by smokers. That partly stems from the fact that smokers tend to die younger, and in fact will generate lower health costs for the state on average than a non-smoker who ends up living longer. Some economists have (tongue firmly planted in cheek mind you) that this cost differential is such that the state should actually be subsidising cigarette consumption... But I digress.
I think the current policies targetting smokers amount to vilification. Smokers are the modern-day equivalent of lepers. In fact, just as we are reducing discrimination against a whole host of groups in society, policymakers are actively working to increase discrimination against smokers. Of course, there is a difference in that smokers make a conscious choice to smoke --- but for the purposes of policy, I'm not sure that should matter. I see stupid suggestions like dictating how cigarettes must be packaged - a recent proposal I've heard argued is that cigarette packs should not have any branding on them whatsoever, apart from the name of the cigarette type in plain font, with the space available on the rest of the pack given to graphic health warnings. Now, I'm sorry, but if smokers don't know the health risks associated with what they're doing, then the Darwinist in me says that society is better off if they die. Of course, most smokers are well aware of the health risks already. The point of such a policy is plainly not to provide smokers with more information - it is designed to make the packs of cigarettes so ugly that smokers will be ashamed to display them in public. What next? Smokers being made to wear a special coloured star on their clothes? How about sending them to 're-education' camps - "Quitting macht frei"? Of course, that's all more than just a slight exaggeration, but the issue of smoking is no longer a policy debate - it's not driven by facts or by careful evaluations of costs and benefits. It is one group in society that wants to impose their will on everyone else - and I think that's fundamentally wrong.
The sad thing is, I don't think it will stop with tobacco either. I have heard more than a few times this year from supposed 'experts' that we now apparently need to have health warnings on alcohol as well. Which, in a rather circuitous fashion, brings me back to the original topic. I think a large part of any observed decline in pub trade has come simply as a result of politicians and the media whipping up hysteria over perceived threats to social order. Binge drinking is rampant, apparently - yet if Britain is anything like Australia, drinking levels have probably remained much the same throughout this decade. But the perception of some grave crisis has scared people - many don't want to be out drinking anymore because violent fights might break out, leaving them to pick broken glass out of their eyes. I'm sure the threat to regular pubgoers is no greater today than it has been in the past. But the desire for politicians to be seen to be doing something, and for the media to sell papers and attract viewers makes the 'problem' seem far worse than it actually is. Is it any wonder that we're left to speculate on why something as iconic as the local British pub appears to be dying?
Oh dear. That was a rather long post.
You could try Word's AutoSummarize feature, I suppose.
I'm not sure I believe the liberalist arguments about why smoking should be permissable. That a right stops being so when it harms others is a fundamental aspect of liberal doctrine. As for the effects of passive smoking, that is obviously related to the quantity of smoke inhaled but laws can't include such tolerances or it opens a can of worms.
I don't buy the argument that smoking has become a cultural necessity attached to a pub. In my opinion, it is exactly this sort of association tobacco companies use to prey on potential smokers. Clearly, it is a good thing that future generations shouldn't be exposed to tobacco unnecessarily. Education is a key actor in that process but when cigarettes and cigars are associated with anything positive - such as the image of relaxing in a pub with a cig' - that sends a very mixed message. No, to prevent smoking from simply being passed down from parent generations to younger ones, that culure has to be eroded. That may upset a few smokers, but this just goes to demonstrate the shocking levels of arrogance held by some members of that community, who draw misleading parallels between the smoking ban and other, more worthy civil liberties issues to further their own, fundamentally self-interested agenda.
And for the record, I strongly believe in the idea of de-branding cigarette packaging as mentioned by Q. Branding equates to advertising - unavoidable 'billboards' of it behind every shop counter. In fact, I would go so far as to say it should only be available by prescription, like every other drug with potentially damaging side-effects.
I'm not sure I believe the liberalist arguments about why smoking should be permissable. That a right stops being so when it harms others is a fundamental aspect of liberal doctrine. As for the effects of passive smoking, that is obviously related to the quantity of smoke inhaled but laws can't include such tolerances or it opens a can of worms.
I don't buy the argument that smoking has become a cultural necessity attached to a pub. In my opinion, it is exactly this sort of association tobacco companies use to prey on potential smokers. Clearly, it is a good thing that future generations shouldn't be exposed to tobacco unnecessarily. Education is a key actor in that process but when cigarettes and cigars are associated with anything positive - such as the image of relaxing in a pub with a cig' - that sends a very mixed message. No, to prevent smoking from simply being passed down from parent generations to younger ones, that culure has to be eroded. That may upset a few smokers, but this just goes to demonstrate the shocking levels of arrogance held by some members of that community, who draw misleading parallels between the smoking ban and other, more worthy civil liberties issues to further their own, fundamentally self-interested agenda.
And for the record, I strongly believe in the idea of de-branding cigarette packaging as mentioned by Q. Branding equates to advertising - unavoidable 'billboards' of it behind every shop counter. In fact, I would go so far as to say it should only be available by prescription, like every other drug with potentially damaging side-effects.
How aboutHymagumba wrote:perhaps you could try and sum it up in five sentences?
- It would be sad to see the local pub go
- It is possible that smoking bans might be contributing to any observed decline in pub patronage (though the effect could be overstated)
- Even if the effect of the smoking ban is small, this doesn't necessarily mean the bans represent good policy
- Much of the anti-smoking policy agenda seems to have shifted from an evaluation of costs and benefits to simply vilifying smokers for their habit
- There is a risk that such policies could spread to anti-alcohol campaigns as well, which would in turn destroy local pubs even further
No - I think that's wrong on both counts. Smoking doesn't automatically cause harm to others. It has a potential to cause harm to others. But so do plenty of things we do in life. Driving has the potential to harm others through its emissions of carbon monoxide. We don't ban people from operating cars though. On the second point, while it wouldn't be practical to establish laws related to the quantity of smoke a non-smoker inhales, I'm not sure there would be much benefit in doing that even if we could. After all, non-smokers also have some say in the amount of secondhand smoke they might inhale. The policy issue is how much smoke is generated, and that is determined by the number of cigarettes one consumes. And on the consumption side, it is very easy to enact policies which increase the cost to smokers - you tax them per cigarette, which is what we do. But the optimal tax is one which is set equal to the marginal cost imposed on the community from that cigarette being consumed. By and large, I tend to think that's been forgotten - most taxes on tobacco are set at a level far higher than the external costs which are generated. Partly that's because smokers are an easy group to tax, so it's a neat way to raise revenue. But I think an even larger part of it is simply vilification - smoking is evil therefore we are entirely justified taxing the habit however much we like. That is certainly the message from the anti-smoking lobby.cdd wrote:I'm not sure I believe the liberalist arguments about why smoking should be permissable. That a right stops being so when it harms others is a fundamental aspect of liberal doctrine. As for the effects of passive smoking, that is obviously related to the quantity of smoke inhaled but laws can't include such tolerances or it opens a can of worms.
Please don't misunderstand me: I wasn't saying that it was. But many individuals would prefer to be able to smoke in pubs. That is a right they are being denied. That is somewhat different to what was in place before the ban. Obviously there were many places where non-smokers were being denied the ability to breathe clean air - but that was down to the decision of the individual pub, and not all pubs did allow smoking on their premises (though obviously most did). Both the individual owner and pubgoer still had a choice.I don't buy the argument that smoking has become a cultural necessity attached to a pub.
Well, I'd be interested to know which civil liberties you believe are worthy of defending, and which we can just do away with? I'm reluctant to go drawing such lines - by definition they impose restrictions on freedom.That may upset a few smokers, but this just goes to demonstrate the shocking levels of arrogance held by some members of that community, who draw misleading parallels between the smoking ban and other, more worthy civil liberties issues to further their own, fundamentally self-interested agenda.
So alcohol should be on prescription too then? Caffeine as well?And for the record, I strongly believe in the idea of de-branding cigarette packaging as mentioned by Q. Branding equates to advertising - unavoidable 'billboards' of it behind every shop counter. In fact, I would go so far as to say it should only be available by prescription, like every other drug with potentially damaging side-effects.
It came to Christmas Day this year when the family had piled round R Gran's for dinner, and the guys usually go to the pub and have a drink. Less than a month ago we would have had a choice of pubs - there's The Bamburgh, which has been refitted in the past few years to resemble some gaudy approximation of a trendy wine bar mixed with an estate pub, and The Fountain, which was taken over a year ago by John Barras. Now we don't; The Fountain has gone out of business. So, all of the Fountain's clientelle had piled into the Bamb (however it was just as busy as it always is on Christmas Day) yet it left me thinking how a pub could do so badly as to go under so unexpectedly.
The thing which annoys me about the smoking ban (and I'm a non smoker) is that I don't recall anyone ever asking for it. There may well be hoards of people retrospectivally arguing in favour of it after it's happened, and people may well have privately wished a ban on smoking in public places, but I don't recall people marching in the streets asking for it, I don't believe 'we'll ban smoking in pubs' being a pledge on which elections are fought, yet it was done.
It was done also at breakneck speed - it went from a possible ban on smoking in clubs, to clubs and pubs, to clubs, pubs, private members clubs, workplaces and virtually everywhere which isn't on an open street or someone's private home. Such major expansion on a proposed policy usually take the wheels of parliament years and years to agree on as each modification gets debated and scrutinised over. However, the government managed to agree on and implement all of this in only a few short years - I doubt you'd find many people seriously believing in mid-2002 that 5 years later it would be illegal to smoke in a pub - things just don't happen that quickly in this country - except on this occasion they have done.
To me the smoking ban has demonstrated two things - that the government operate on their own agenda and have no regard at all for what the people they claim to represent want done with this country, and secondly that they CAN change something quickly if they want to - the carefully built belief that major policy decisions have to take a decade or more is clear bollocks.
A final point for all those who can now enjoy a drink - a nice alcoholic one - in a pub free of nasty smokers to consider - if you think it will stop at smoking you're kidding yourself. Alcohol will be the next big thing. Like smoking, drinking will be made more and more expensive, harder and harder to do, and finally will start to be banned. I truly believe that I will live to see the day when it will be illegal to drink in a pub.
It was done also at breakneck speed - it went from a possible ban on smoking in clubs, to clubs and pubs, to clubs, pubs, private members clubs, workplaces and virtually everywhere which isn't on an open street or someone's private home. Such major expansion on a proposed policy usually take the wheels of parliament years and years to agree on as each modification gets debated and scrutinised over. However, the government managed to agree on and implement all of this in only a few short years - I doubt you'd find many people seriously believing in mid-2002 that 5 years later it would be illegal to smoke in a pub - things just don't happen that quickly in this country - except on this occasion they have done.
To me the smoking ban has demonstrated two things - that the government operate on their own agenda and have no regard at all for what the people they claim to represent want done with this country, and secondly that they CAN change something quickly if they want to - the carefully built belief that major policy decisions have to take a decade or more is clear bollocks.
A final point for all those who can now enjoy a drink - a nice alcoholic one - in a pub free of nasty smokers to consider - if you think it will stop at smoking you're kidding yourself. Alcohol will be the next big thing. Like smoking, drinking will be made more and more expensive, harder and harder to do, and finally will start to be banned. I truly believe that I will live to see the day when it will be illegal to drink in a pub.
I can see why people blame the smoking ban, but other factors contribute. Take the pub I used to go in (Coca-Cola only for me...) before Forest games. It was called the Magpies (after the other local club, Notts County) and frequented by Forest fans and away fans alike. Anyway, the smoking ban came in, and many people simply took the pints outside, but some inevitably DID leave. Eventually, new owners came in, and made everything more expensive, took away the Sky Sports on TV (infact, they took away the telly), and ditched the games, such as darts, with pool being the only survivor. Needless to say, these changes were not popular, and many left to various other pubs and clubs.
The Magpies was demolished, and a KFC stands in its place.
The Magpies was demolished, and a KFC stands in its place.
The New Malpass.
As always, Q, you present interesting and compelling points. A few responses:
*(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ ... nds_37.pdf
*(2) http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068824
Finally, I should mention: the suggestion that people who don't like smoking don't visit pubs is one often wheeled out by those in favour of smoking, but there are several major flaws with it. You are right that pubs are an exception in that they have had smoking associated with them for a long time; but consider public places like restaurants, schools, churches etc. In these contexts, it is not so easy just to "walk away", or not attend, and thus avoid the smoke: they are an integral part of our society, and avoiding them makes life highly difficult. With restaurants, people often go in groups and it is highly embarrassing to insist on leaving if someone lights a cigarette - especially from someone within your group. And for some individuals, like children (who, we must remember, are allowed to frequent pubs as well), they do not have the autonomy to 'just leave'. I certainly remember that as one of the really unpleasant aspects of my childhood, and I think it's a really good thing that future generations don't have to experience that - it's something that actaully makes me happy to consider and optimistic about the future of the world.
But this is because driving has a social/public benefit. The benefits of the automobile industry are plain for everyone to see. And even though car accidents kills 3360 people every year*(1), society has deemed the benefits to outweigh the costs. By contrast, smoking offers no public benefit - only a private benefit, yet kills an estimated 106,000 people per year in the UK*(2). So I don't consider that to be a fair comparison.Smoking doesn't automatically cause harm to others. It has a potential to cause harm to others. But so do plenty of things we do in life. Driving has the potential to harm others through its emissions of carbon monoxide. We don't ban people from operating cars though.
*(1) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/ ... nds_37.pdf
*(2) http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/23068824
I agree recent governments have used cigarettes as an excuse to garner cash. But of course the truth is that I'm not of a mind to complain about a voluntary tax I don't have to contribute to. After all, were the cash not taken from cigarettes, it would have to come from somewhere, probably my pocket. The real problem with taxing cigarettes is that it creates a conflict of interest for the government: as you say, tax. rev. from cigarettes exceeds their cost, and so it is clearly only half-heartedly that governments enact such legislation.it is very easy to enact policies which increase the cost to smokers - you tax them per cigarette, which is what we do
This would be more accurately stated I think as "many individuals over 30 would prefer to be able to smoke in pubs". Now I'm not saying that people over 30 don't matter, but ultimately we should operate in a way that benefits the future, not the present. Allowing smoking is directly conflicted with the need to educate the population that smoking is bad - and surely being around smokers makes people more likely to smoke themselves.many individuals would prefer to be able to smoke in pubs. That is a right they are being denied
That's correct, but pubs are business and as such operate in accordance with the rules of economics. Logic dictates that if a) most customers smoke and b) few customers appear to be put off the idea of going to pubs as a result, allowing smoking will maximise revenue. That may be so, but I consider this issue to be a good example of where allowing the free market model leads to a bad decision - for all the other reasons outlined. This, also, is what pleases me so much about this law: it is a rare example of legislation that is not a concession to interest groups, and is as staple in my opinion as other laws governing theft or fraud.[that smoking was allowed] was down to the decision of the individual pub...
That comment implies that I view smoking as a civil liberty that is being eroded - which is not what I am saying at all. To present smoking as a civil liberties issue is misleading. Smoking in pubilc shares none of the traits of other civil liberties which, crucially, don't harm other people. Freedom of thought and speech, for example, harms nobody: hearing views you dislike is part of life. The same goes for many other examples, and I think it is very true to say that private smoking is a victimless crime and as such as a civil liberties issue. But public smoking damages the lives of others: at the very least, because many non-smokers find the smell to be unpleasant, and furthermore documented by large quantities of medical research all pointing the same way.I'd be interested to know which civil liberties you believe are worthy of defending, and which we can just do away with
The effects of those drugs transpire more in behavioral changes (although I would dispute that the latter has any negative effects, public or private). Alcohol does have significant public costs, and I believe that people who are drunk and disorderly should be treated the same as someone behaving in that way without intoxication - but that's a topic for a whole 'nother day.So alcohol should be on prescription too then? Caffeine as well?
Me, for a long time.Cwathen wrote:I don't recall anyone ever asking for [the smoking ban]
Finally, I should mention: the suggestion that people who don't like smoking don't visit pubs is one often wheeled out by those in favour of smoking, but there are several major flaws with it. You are right that pubs are an exception in that they have had smoking associated with them for a long time; but consider public places like restaurants, schools, churches etc. In these contexts, it is not so easy just to "walk away", or not attend, and thus avoid the smoke: they are an integral part of our society, and avoiding them makes life highly difficult. With restaurants, people often go in groups and it is highly embarrassing to insist on leaving if someone lights a cigarette - especially from someone within your group. And for some individuals, like children (who, we must remember, are allowed to frequent pubs as well), they do not have the autonomy to 'just leave'. I certainly remember that as one of the really unpleasant aspects of my childhood, and I think it's a really good thing that future generations don't have to experience that - it's something that actaully makes me happy to consider and optimistic about the future of the world.